servicenow-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the '[Write]' tag, which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—just one sentence with a tag—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe invocation. However, the high schema coverage and single parameter mitigate some gaps, making it minimally adequate but with clear room for improvement.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying deletion by name, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high. It doesn't compensate for gaps, but none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('system property by name'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_delete_properties' (not present) or 'set_system_property' (which is a sibling), so it misses full sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for single deletions versus bulk operations or how it relates to tools like 'set_system_property' or 'bulk_set_properties' in the sibling list. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.